Both sides question experts in DOJ case

GRAHAM — In the latest motions filed in the U.S. Justice Department lawsuit against Sheriff Terry Johnson, both sides call into question the legitimacy of testimony by expert witnesses.

Defense attorney Chuck Kitchen and the DOJ over the past week filed responses to motions requesting summary judgment from a federal court in a lawsuit filed against Johnson over accusations that he and his department have discriminated against Latinos.

Lamberth was retained by the DOJ to conduct research and file an expert report. The report was included as an exhibit in a motion the DOJ filed Nov. 26. Lamberth served on the faculty at Temple University from 1973 until his retirement in 2002. He currently leads Lamberth Consulting, which provides consulting services to police departments, local governments and civil rights groups.

Lamberth conducted a field study and corresponding analyses to determine whether the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office disproportionately stopped and cited Hispanic motorists from 2008 to 2013 on three major roadways in the county.

The field study test was conducted on U.S. 70 from Mebane to the Alamance-Guilford county line, on N.C. 87 from Southern High School Road to Troxler Mill Road, and on N.C. 49 from Bellemont-Mount Hermon Road to N.C. 119.

According to Lamberth’s study, “the probability that ACSO will stop and cite an Hispanic motorist is about twice as high as Graham-Hopedale Road approaches Apple Street Extension and the mobile home park than it is at Graham-Hopedale Road and U.S. 70.”

Kitchen’s motion said Lamberth’s selection of the three roads for the field study test was “fatally flawed.”

“Dr. Lamberth chose three roads which are not representative of the roads patrolled by deputies,” Kitchen’s motion stated. “In fact, 13 of 22 observation sites were located within city limits of towns in Alamance County. Further, 16 of the 22 observation sites were located at intersections with traffic lights, a flashing light or with a four-way stop. Many of the observation sites were also clustered in the city limits of these towns. Dr. Lamberth testified that he chose the roads because they had mobile home parks next to them.”

Kitchen said he didn’t believe that Lamberth was trying to get a fair and unbiased study, but instead believed the field study was designed to produce a study to support the DOJ’s case. Kitchen called Lamberth’s study “junk science.”

In his motion, Kitchen also stated that there is no pattern or practice of biased policing.

“Many current and former officers with the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office have testified that racial or ethnic profiling does not occur in the Sheriff’s Office,” Kitchen stated. “Current and former officers and agents from several agencies which work closely with the Sheriff’s Office have also testified that there is no racial profiling occurring.”

David Banks, who was retained by Turrentine Law Firm, where Kitchen is employed, testified last year that there is no statistical evidence that checkpoints were sited in ways that targeted the Latino population. Banks is a professor of the practice of statistics with the Department of Statistical Science at Duke University. He was supplied with data from the ACSO, U.S. Census Bureau, and North Carolina state government to conduct his research.

THE DOJ’S RESPONSE filed last Friday argued Johnson’s defense has failed to acknowledge the statistical analyses by the DOJ’s experts showing the ACSO’s traffic enforcement activities “exert a large disproportionate impact on Latinos.”

John MacDonald also was hired by the DOJ to analyze outcomes of all stops conducted by ACSO officers since June 2008. MacDonald is an associate professor of criminology and sociology at the University of Pennsylvania.

Using four separate databases that the DOJ obtained from ACSO, MacDonald’s conclusion was that Latinos were searched at a 20 percent higher rate compared to non-Latinos.

THE DOJ ALSO argued that the Sheriff’s Office fails to use commonly accepted mechanisms to prevent and detect discriminatory policing.

“Testimony from top ACSO officials demonstrates that the agency conducts no review whatsoever of the legal bases for discretionary activities such as stops, searches, and arrests; does not investigate or track complaints of discriminatory traffic stops; and does not regularly review officer performance,” the DOJ stated.

“Since 2008, Internal Affairs has investigated 71 incidents,” Kitchen said. “Included in this number are 10 complaints relating to traffic stops. Files are maintained on all Internal Affairs investigations.”

The Sheriff’s Office receives and tracks complaints from the public, and there is a formal policy on how the complaints are handled, according to Kitchen.

“Sheriff Johnson relies on the training of his officers to provide guidance on probable cause and reasonable suspicion on making vehicle stops,” Kitchen said. “The Sheriff’s Office has provided more than 50,000 hours of training over and above the state-mandated training since 2008. Together with this training, the lieutenant, who serves as the supervisor of each shift, reviews the reports of the deputies regarding probable cause and general supervision.”

In June 2010, the DOJ first notified Alamance County and Johnson of an investigation into allegations of discriminatory policing and unconstitutional searches and seizures. On Sept. 18, 2012, the department issued a formal findings letter detailing ACSO’s alleged discriminatory policing practices against Latinos. Johnson has repeatedly denied the allegations.

The DOJ had invited the Sheriff’s Office in 2012 to negotiate a court enforceable agreement to remedy the alleged violations. The Sheriff’s Office declined the offer, which led to the DOJ’s decision to sue Johnson in December 2012. A trial is scheduled for July.